Transcript Slide 1
TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Reconciling bio-energy policy and delivery in the UK TSEC 27th July 2009 Biomass and Bioenergy 2008 : doi:10.1016/jbiombioe.2008.10.007 Raphael Slade, Caliope Panoutsou, Ausilio Bauen E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 7306 The UK has sought to lead on climate change ‘Climate change is probably, in the long term, the single most important issue we face as a global community’ ‘We need to go beyond Kyoto… climate change cannot be ignored’ ‘This is extremely urgent. A 50% cut by 2050 has to be a central component’ [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys 80%... (Climate Change Act 08) The world needs to face up to the challenge of climate change, and to do so now (07) Government must show leadership by setting the right framework. Binding targets for carbon reduction, year on year (06) Tackling climate change is our social responsibility (06) [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Increased deployment of bio-energy is part of the solution… …will UK or EU initiatives lead the way? Modest increases in deployment, but more needs to be done “The UK is in danger of being left behind” Royal Commission Environmental Pollution 22nd report The [UK] approach can be characterised as: no targets; no concerted policy; no strategy; and, limited support for development Sir Ben Gill – Biomass Taskforce [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Outline • Are existing UK policies performing? • Will new UK initiatives increase deployment? • The role of the EU • Conclusions [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys The existing policy framework is extensive… Incentive schemes target all stages of the supply-chain and the innovation chain. Supply chain Feedstocks Conversion Distribution R&D 16 incentive schemes identified* including: • Energy Crops Scheme • Bioenergy infrastructure scheme • DTI technology programme • Community energy • ROCs Innovation chain Commercialisation • Community renewables initiative Knowledge transfer Numerous organisations are responsible for administration: * Biomass Task Force 2005 [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys …but ambitious high level targets cannot be disaggregated 12.5% cut in CO2, relative to 1990 levels, by 2012 UK Set the UK on a path to cut CO2 by 60% by 2050 20% cut relative to 1990 levels, by 2010 “Significant contribution” Bio-energy “Is important” [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Specific targets run counter to Government policy… The political mindset Implications for bio-energy • Competition should be supported • Technology options should compete of price • Support mechanisms should be technology blind Is the current level of deployment the most efficient and thus desirable?... …or indicative of policy failure? • Policy cost should be minimised …bio-energy policies cannot be assessed against objectives [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Will future policies increase deployment? This strategy aims to … “realise a major expansion in the supply and use of biomass in the UK” May 2007 [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys European Policy processes and interactions EU Biofuels directive EU Biofuels Strategy EU Biomass action plan Non-food crops strategy National Regional Transport Innovation Strategy Energy review National Audit OfficeRenewable energy Microgeneration strategy Non-food crops progress report Carbon trust Biomass sector review Energy White Paper Agreement for ResE Directive RCEP Biomass Biomass Taskforce Response to Taskforce UK Biomass Strategy England wood fuel strategy Waste Strategy Consultation For England Direct link Waste Strategy for England Biomass action plan for Scotland Influence 03 04 05 Year [email protected] 06 07 08 TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys The framework for assessment Policy model Reform issue Implementation & evaluation Decision Agenda On agenda Decision for reform Successful implementation Not on Decision against Unsuccessful Evaluation Time Best practice criteria Action categories • Delivery mechanism • Unambiguous objectives - Incentives / standards / information / further work • Quantifiable outcomes • Cause and effect are linked • Resource commitment • Adequate time and resources - New funding / ambiguous / negligible • Escape hatch • Compliance enforceable • Implementation considered alongside policy formation • Delivery agencies not interdependent - Review… / consider… / look at… / where appropriate… • Follow-up - Accepted / contingent / rejected [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Setting the agenda • Identified heat as a key area for support – proposed a heat obligation • Implicit demand for additional financial support • Dismissed biofuels as ‘inefficient’ or ‘speculative’ • Failed to make request for support explicit • Failed to link increased support to tangible benefits 2004 • Little impact on subsequent reports [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Re-defining the agenda • Called for a link between UK targets and those for bio-energy, and to make them quantifiable • Recognised that fragmentation of delivery was a problem • Focused on “encouragement and facilitation” actions only • Starting point: no new funding could be justified • Heat obligation (from RCEP) rejected as unworkable 2005 • Implicit rejection of RCEP demand additional funding [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Agreeing an agenda • Capital grant scheme ~10-15m / 2 years (half that proposed by taskforce) • Implicit rejection of link between UK targets and those for bio-energy • No commitments have quantifiable objectives • Most commitments have escape hatches built in, or are contingent on other reviews 2006 [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Reframing the debate • A return to the agenda phase: from bioenergy to climate change and innovation • No causal link between policy goals and delivery outcomes • Intangible actions: ambiguous outcomes… e.g. “the UK will continue to engage internationally” • Little additional funding: will a ~£7m/yr capital grant scheme deliver a “major expansion”? May 2007 [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Developments in the EU Indicative, non-binding targets Precise, legally binding targets A co-ordinated approach Minimum sustainability standards [email protected] Renewable electricity directive (2001) Biofuels directive (2003) Agreement for renewable energy directive (2008) TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Conclusions… • The UK has stretching renewable energy and carbon targets, but targets for bio-energy are ambiguous • There are many bio-energy policy initiatives, but no causal link between objectives and outcomes • Most policy actions are limited to information provision / facilitation. Their efficacy is unknown. • Attempts to translate UK-level targets into lower-level targets for bio-energy have been made, but have not been pursued • Increased deployment will be driven by the EU [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys July 2009… The UK Renewable Energy Strategy [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys RES Bioenergy related recommendations • • • • Renewable heat incentive resurrected New office for Renewable Energy Development Feed-in tariffs for small-scale generators Inclusion of sustainability criteria in RO Numerous consultations… Numerous new departments, boards, committees… Increasing technology prescription… A General Election before June 2010! [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys An alternative (incrementalist) perspective… “… understanding a social problem is not always necessary for its amelioration.” “Policy change is, under most circumstances, evolutionary…neither revolution, nor drastic policy change, nor even carefully planned big steps are ordinarily possible… “A fast moving sequence of small changes can more speedily accomplish a drastic alteration of the status quo than can only infrequent major policy change.” (Lindblom 1979) [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys Thank you for your attention [email protected] TSEC Biosys TSEC Biosys